Corporatism, Pluralism, and Democracy: Toward a Deliberative Theory of Bureaucratic Accountability.

1. Corporatism, Pluralism, and Democracy: Toward a Deliberative Theory of Bureaucratic Accountability. Author: CHRISTIAN HUNOLD

2. Written and published: • Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2001 • Focus: • The essay brings forward a deliberative model of bureaucratic accountability. • Geographical/ thematic anecdote: • Written about UK and US, relating to the type of governmental organizations and systems that are present there.

3. Problem: • The article seeks to resolve the democratic problem of the expansion of bureaucratic discretion during the twentieth century. The democratic problem arises when law are made by unelected officials. This is a result of vaguely worded framework legislation according to Kerwin. Framework legislation delegates to the public bureaucracy the authority to formulate rules and regulations carrying out this task, administrative agencies routinely make decisions carrying out this task, administrative agencies routinely make decisions not expressly provided for by statutes.

4. Inadequate solutions: • One proposed solution is to strengthening the oversight role of the legislature. But this takes not in to account the limited oversight capacity of legislatures.

5. The article proposes a deliberative model of bureaucratic accountability. In a deliberative democracy, citizens use public deliberation to make collectively binding decisions. Public deliberation involves the exchange of reasons aimed at evaluating alternative courses of action to be undertaken by the polity. Proposed solution:

6. This includes the inclusion of everyone affected by a decision and substantial political equality, including equal opportunities to participate in deliberation her under equality in methods of decision-making and in setting the agenda. Furthermore the free and open exchange of information and reasons sufficient to acquire an understanding of both the issue in question and the opinion of others. Norms of freedom and equality

7. Processes of discussion that meet these norms, deliberative democrats argue, will tend to produce decisions that are widely regarded as democratically legitimate. • The norms are ideals that no rule-making process can ever hope to achieve in full.

8. Theory base of the proposed solution: • Deliberatively democratic rulemaking historically has been placed in a corporatist framework. A corporatist pattern of interest representation may imply that a deliberative theory of administrative accountability has little utility outside corporatist contexts. • The article seeks to refute this view.

9. Main concepts: Wikipedia: Corporatism is a form of political organization in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for pressuring the state from outside, in corporatism, certain large nation-wide bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process, and acquire formal state power

10. Objection l: Deliberative Democracy Requires Consensus. Objection 2: Deliberative Democracy Is Inefficient Tree objections to applying deliberative democracy to public administration: Objection 3: Deliberative Democracy Cannot Accommodate Interests.

11. Bohman envisions what he calls a “truly public form of administration” where administrators are held accountable through “public impact statements” that would explain how the public reasons expressed by those affected were taken up in the decision-making process. A truly public administration requires maximizing publicity, equality, and inclusiveness in discussion and decision-making. A deliberative model of bureaucratic accountability

12. corporatism treats interest groups as legitimate participants in public policy-making, which legitimates their having an official policy-making role. culturally there is an elective affinity between corporatism and deliberative democracy. CORPORATISM

13. Pluralism views interest groups as aggregating the preferences of their members and working to maximize those preferences in a political arena characterized by conflict. Pluralism accepts that interest groups are motivated primarily by a shared conception of the public. PLURALISM

14. Corporatism encourages more deliberative activities, such as the discovery and transformation of group preferences through the probing of volitions and joint problem-solving. Mansbridge believes that a corporatist system of interest representation is fairly consistent with key norms of public deliberation, at least in theory. CORPORATISM vr. PLURALISM

15. Corporatism’s contribution to political theory is to have drawn attention to the “deliberative functions of interest groups and the agreements now made in conjunction with formal lawmaking processes” and to have questioned inequality and self-interest in negotiations. Although traditional corporatist arrangements and prescriptions have concentrated on deliberations by elites, she thinks that corporatism can be modified to permit a more democratic process of public deliberation among the public and private sectors . • Mansbridge argues that corporatist theories give a richer account of deliberation within interest groups than do pluralist theories.

16. corporatism postulates a well-regulated framework of interaction wherein neither the state nor interest groups lose sight of public interest considerations. By contrast, there is little room for this balancing of private and public concerns in a pluralist universe populated by competitive, self-seeking interest groups. Thus, key norms of public deliberation are implicit in corporatism, which holds that interest groups should participate in public policy-making and ought to consult with each other so as to determine what each of them wants or needs and what is best for the wider society.

17. CORPORATISM critic.. • While there may be a substantial degree of equality among public and private sector elites involved in corporatist negotiations, tripartite corporatism clearly violates the conditions of publicity and inclusiveness.

18. while there are some examples of democratic corporatism in existence today, these examples do not support the claim that corporatism is necessarily more compatible with deliberative democracy than pluralism. Indeed, both corporatism and pluralism have been in flux for some time, moving toward more open systems of interest representation. • examples of democratic corporatism: • Sweden and the Netherlands have largely abandoned tripartite consultative arrangements in favor of more inclusive public consultations.

19. PLURALISM and evolution.. • Old-style pluralism is giving way to new forms of interactions between public and private actors, forms that are more deliberative in nature. Where classic pluralism was based on adversarial norms and closed structures of interest representation, the new model champions cooperation and the probing of volitions among a larger number of affected groups and actors.

20. new forms of pluralist and corporatist interest representation are generally better able to accommodate the values of publicity, equality, and inclusiveness than the older liberal pluralist and tripartite models. Corporatism has become more deliberative where tripartite arrangements have given way to more open structures. Similarly, pluralist arrangements have begun to look more dialogical where issue networks have superseded iron triangles. Corporatism has become more like pluralism in that previously excluded groups now participate in policy deliberations.

22. What is ....? • Publicity • Equality • Inclusiveness

23. Pluralism has become more like corporatism in that the state sponsors policy deliberations to encourage interest groups to cooperate with each other and with administrative agencies. In other words, success in implementing a deliberatively democratic theory of administrative accountability does not require a corporatist framework.